700k settlement from bike dooring accident.
Can someone please help me understand how the bike rental company had to pay anything, let alone more than 2x what the motorist who doored him did.
Views: 1989
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tim S on
-
1. Important, says you. As it is not the law for motorcycles to wear helmets why do people want to make cyclists wear them?
2. A bike is easy to track, helmet not so much.
3. Hygiene, all those sweaty heads... yuck.
4. One spill renders a helmet potentially useless, how do you know when one has been damaged?
It is cool you wear one, I (begrudgingly) wear one too but you can't make people wear them.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Dworzanski on
-
1. Important say many. And just to be clear, I'm not saying the cyclist should have to wear it. I'm just saying a helmet should have to be provided.
2. If it was required someone would invent a good on-bike attachment. This isn't rocket science.
3. Replaceable liners.
4. Impact indicator.
I do wear one whenever I ride my bike. But I don't wear one when riding Divvy. Not because I don't want to but because I don't carry a helmet around with me at all times. I bet I'm not the only one.
Tim S said:1. Important, says you. As it is not the law for motorcycles to wear helmets why do people want to make cyclists wear them?
2. A bike is easy to track, helmet not so much.
3. Hygiene, all those sweaty heads... yuck.
4. One spill renders a helmet potentially useless, how do you know when one has been damaged?
It is cool you wear one, I (begrudgingly) wear one too but you can't make people wear them.
-
-
Worse than LSB being sued is the other person riding the bike (it was a tandem) being sued. I mean seriously? This is unbelievable. I guess if I sit next to someone on the CTA who has a cold that I catch, I'll sue them for the time I miss from work and my pain and suffering.
-
-
Totally with you Bob, so crazy to think that the law allows for the scope of pockets that it did.
Oh and thank you for your PSA Tom, no more needed this is not about helmets.
-
Permalink Reply by ad on
-
The exact breakdown of how/why the various policies paid out isn't given, but it's fairly likely the driver of the tandem bicycle's policy kicked in because of uninsured motorist coverage. In other words, the policy likely covered the injured person for the injuries caused by the SUV that fled the scene, not necessarily based on any liability the driver of the bike had for the accident itself.
Tim S said:Totally with you Bob, so crazy to think that the law allows for the scope of pockets that it did.
Oh and thank you for your PSA Tom, no more needed this is not about helmets.
-
-
Yea, Heritage Bicycles has stopped their rental program because of this stupid cyclist and lawyer combo. Horrible, blame the blameless and hurt the small business rather than the jerk who caused the accident.
-
-
Before throwing around terms like stupid cyclist, maybe its worth stopping for a minute and remembering that this cyclist was injured (fairly seriously, with long term deficits from what I've heard) through what is likely very little to no fault of his own.
And as far as blaming the blameless, you have no idea (nor do any of us besides the parties involved at this point) what all went into the various insurance companies' decisions to settle. At a minimum, it appears that the rental company did not provide the cyclist with a helmet and instruction on operating the bicycle, though the rental agreement stated those things would be provided.
Does that make them even close to the most culpable party in this situation? No. But--if true--it certainly means they were not "blameless" as far as tort law is concerned. They failed to comply with a term of the rental contract, and their insurer felt the company stood in a position to incur liability as a result.
At least we can all rest easier knowing that if you ever find yourself in a similar life-shattering circumstance, you'll stand on your principles and avoid any available avenues of recovery for your injuries and pursue only those a certain segment of society feels should be held to blame--damn any consequences to your future well being or ability to properly take care of yourself.
Tim S said:Yea, Heritage Bicycles has stopped their rental program because of this stupid cyclist and lawyer combo. Horrible, blame the blameless and hurt the small business rather than the jerk who caused the accident.
-
-
No, but if a car company writes (or allows to be written) into their rental contract that you will be provided a car with side impact air bags, and then you fail to provide the renter with a car equipped with side impact air bags, and the renter is subsequently involved and injured in a serious accident, you better believe that rental company just opened themselves up to potential liability.
Jeff Schneider said:It makes no (common) sense at all for the bike shop to be liable for anything other than taking reasonable care that the bike is mechanically safe to operate. I guess the law is a different story...
When you rent a car, is the rental company required to warn you about local road hazards, or laws or ordinances that might be different from those where you live? I don't think so.
-
Permalink Reply by djm on
-
1) Have you read the full car rental agreement? I think you agree that its all your fault no matter what happens. :-)
2) Large car rental companies can afford to spend a lot of money on litigation to protect their long-term interests.
Jeff Schneider said:When you rent a car, is the rental company required to warn you about local road hazards, or laws or ordinances that might be different from those where you live? I don't think so.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
